Photo Albums

Is Atheism A Belief?

I really wish I could just leave it at that. Maybe post a funny story about Einstein here instead, or show you some cute pictures of our cats.

But I suppose I can't just leave it at that.

Here's the thing. One of the most common accusations aimed at atheists is that atheism is an article of faith, a belief just as much as religion. Because atheism can't be proven with absolute 100% certainty, the accusation goes, therefore not believing in God means taking a leap of faith -- a leap of faith that's every bit as irrational and unjustified as religion.

It's a little odd to have this accusation hurled in such an accusatory manner by people who supposedly respect and value faith. But that's a puzzle for another time. Today, I want to talk about a different puzzle -- the puzzle of what atheism really is, and how it gets so misunderstood.

Let's start with this right off the bat: No, atheism is not a belief. For me, and for the overwhelming majority of atheists I know, atheism is not the a priori assumption that there is no God. Our atheism is not an article of faith, adhered to regardless of what evidence does or does not support it. Our atheism is not the absolute, 100%, unshakeable certainty that there is no God.

For me, and for the overwhelming majority of atheists I know, our atheism is a provisional conclusion, based on careful reasoning and on the best available evidence we have. Our atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is unsupported by any good evidence, and that unless we see better evidence, we're going to assume that God does not exist. If we see better evidence, we'll change our minds.

Look at it this way. Are you 100% certain that the Earth is round? Are you 100% certain that there are no unicorns? I assume the answer is a pretty heartfelt, "No." I assume you accept that it's hypothetically possible, however improbable, that unicorns really exist and that all physical traces of them have disappeared by magic. I assume you accept that it's hypothetically possible, however improbable, that the Earth really is a flat disc carried on the back of a giant turtle, and that all evidence to the contrary has been planted in our brains by hyper-intelligent space aliens as some sort of cosmic prank.

Your conclusion that there are no unicorns on this round Earth of ours is based on careful reasoning and the best available evidence you have. If you saw better evidence -- if there were a discovery of unicorns on a remote island of Madagascar, if you saw an article in the Times about an astonishing but well-substantiated archeological find of unicorn fossils -- you'd change your mind.

And that's the deal with atheism. If atheism is a belief, then any conclusion we can't be 100% certain of is a belief. And that's not a very useful definition of the word "belief." With the exception of certain mathematical and logic conclusions (along the lines of "if A and B are true, then C is true"), we don't know anything with 100% certainty. But we can still make reasonable conclusions about what is and is not likely to be true. We can still sift through our ideas, and test them, and make reasonable conclusions about how likely or unlikely they are. And those conclusions are not beliefs. If that's how you're defining belief, then just about everything we know is a belief.

Religious belief, on the other hand, is a belief. If you ask most religious believers, "What would convince you that your belief was mistaken? What would convince you that God does not exist?", they typically reply, "Nothing. I have faith in my God. Nothing would persuade me that he was not real. That's what it means to have faith." This isn't true of all believers -- some will say that their religious belief is based on evidence and reason and could be falsified -- but when you press them hard on what evidence would persuade them out of their belief, they get very slippery indeed. They keep moving the goalposts again and again, or they keep changing their definitions of God to the point where he's so abstract he essentially can't be disproven, or they make their standards of evidence so impossible that they're laughably absurd. ("Come up with an alternate explanation for the existence of every single physical particle in the universe. Everything -- down to the minutest sub-atomic particle known or surmised presently, to everything yet to be discovered in the future -- must be accounted for up-front each with its own individual explanation." I'm not kidding. Someone actually said that.) Their belief might be falsifiable in theory... but in practice, it's anything but. In practice, it's an a priori assumption, an axiom they start with and are not willing to let go of, no matter how much overwhelming evidence there is contradicting it, or how many logical pretzels their axiom forces them into.

And that's conspicuously not the case for atheism.

Now, a few atheists will contradict this. A few atheists do say, "Yes, I'm 100% persuaded that atheism is correct." But when you press them on it, they almost always acknowledge that yes, hypothetically, there might be some God hypothesis that's correct. Even if it's not a God hypothesis that anyone actually believes in, or even if it's only the most detached, deistic, non-interventionist, "for all practical purposes non-existent" God you can think of... when pressed, even the ardent "100-percenters" acknowledge that there's a minuscule, entirely hypothetical possibility that God exists. When they say they're 100% convinced of their atheism, they mean that they're 100% convinced for all practical purposes, given the best information they currently have.

And that's still a conclusion -- not a belief.

So is atheism a belief?

No.

*

Once again, I dearly wish I could just end it there. Fill out the rest of this piece with some tirades against the religious right, or tell you an inappropriate and irrelevant anecdote about my sex life. (Or show you some more pictures of my cats. They're very cute. I promise you.)

But I'm afraid I can't.

Because we have a somewhat knottier question here, a question that muddies this issue and makes conversations about it a giant, slippery mess.

We have the question of what the word "belief" even means.

The word "belief" has multiple meanings. It can mean a basic tenet -- in other words, a doctrine or dogma -- especially in a religious context. But it can also simply mean an opinion or conviction: something thought to be true or not true. It can mean "trust or confidence" -- such as, "I believe in my marriage." And, of course, it can mean "deeply held core value, something that's considered to be fundamentally good" -- such as, "I believe in democracy."

That's true for a lot of words, of course. Plenty of words have multiple meanings; some even have meanings that are almost the opposite of each other. But because this particular word is so central to religion and the debates about it, it come with an inordinate amount of problematic baggage.

When they're debating atheists or defending their religion, religious people often blur the lines between some or all of these different meanings, slipping back and forth between them. In trying to defend the validity of their own beliefs -- or to slur atheists with the appalling (if somewhat baffling) taint of having faith -- religious people often conflate these different meanings of the word "belief."

They mix up the "opinion or conclusion" meaning with the "doctrine or dogma" meaning, to make any reasonably plausible conclusion seem like unsupported dogma... or to make unsupported dogma seem like any other reasonably plausible conclusion. They mix up the "core value" meaning with the "doctrine or dogma" meaning, to make any passionate conviction seem like stubborn close-mindedness... or to make inflexible adherence to dogma seem like a strong moral foundation. They mix up the "trust and confidence" meaning with the "doctrine or dogma" meaning, to make any act of confidence without absolute certainty seem like irrational blindness... or to make belief in that for which there's no good evidence seem like a loving act of loyalty, and to make atheism seem suspicious and cynical.

If atheists say, "I don't believe in God," religious people will reply, "See? Atheism is a belief!" (Overlooking the fact that "Not believing in X" isn't the same as "Believing in Not X.") If atheists say, "I believe in evolution" -- meaning, "I think evolution is true" -- religious people will jump all over it, saying, "See? Atheists believe in evolution, just like I believe in God!" (Overlooking the fact that evolution is a conclusion supported by a massively overwhelming body of hard physical evidence from every relevant branch of science, and that religion is supported primarily by logicalerrors, cognitive errors, misunderstandings of probability, an excessive tendency to trust authority figures and things we were taught as children, and the demonstrably flawed cognitive process known as intuition.) If atheists say, "I believe in something bigger than myself," religious people will reply, "See? See? You have beliefs! Therefore, your atheism is a belief!" (Overlooking the fact that atheists having beliefs is not the same as atheism being a belief. Sheesh.)

Even if it's patently clear from context which definition of "belief" we're using, it's way too common for religious followers to twist it around into the definition that best supports their... well, their beliefs.

And because of this, I've come to the reluctant conclusion that, when atheists are discussing our own ideas and feelings and conclusions, we should stop using the word "belief." I'm trying to wean myself off of it, and I'm encouraging other atheists to do the same.

If we want to say that we think something is true, I think we should use the word "conclusion." (Or "opinion," depending on how certain we are about what we think.) If we want to say that we think something is good, I think we should use the word "value." If we want to say that we have trust or confidence in something, I think we should use the word... well, "trust" or "confidence." I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the word "belief" is irrevocably tainted: there's no way to use it in discussions with believers without the great likelihood of being misunderstood. Deliberately or otherwise. So whenever it seems likely that our use of the word "belief" will be misunderstood -- and it seems that any use of the word "belief" is likely to be misunderstood -- we should endeavor to make our language as clear and precise as possible.

It's impossible to prevent religious believers from twisting our ideas. It's impossible to prevent religious believers from putting words in our mouth, and pretending that we said things we clearly never said and don't think.

To Blondin.
Reading through this blog what you and Theunis said about such iniquities and "atrocities", I like both of you despise them to such an extent that words to describe my feelings fail me.
With sex I presume you mean gender. You said he is a she/he making him a hermophrodite. (Just pulling your leg)
I can see why he misunderstood your gender. Blondin in our part of the world and some european countries means blondie with reference to a blond female. Not the bad blond jokes. We consider such jokes vulgar and don't make them. So please excuse the man.

I can quote the references because I have already found them but why should I. If I found them what is stopping anybody else from doing the same. If I come across a statement then I don't say bullshit prove it, I find the evidence to contradict or confirm it. I do not consider the onus to be solely on the other person if he was quoting someone else. I first go and check it up and only then will I confront the person who made the statement or merely enlighten him.

With all the pointers given it should not be difficult.
We are discussing every day life and everyday day matters which should be common knowledge. Am I perhaps missing something or is it a fact that some atheists have acquired the bad habit of saying prove it because they are just plain lazy and want to be spoon fed. Knowledge sought and found on your own or with pointers from others is more valuable than being spoon fed.

Sheez Tatarize checks many things and he is a liberal atheist so why can't others do the same. Quite frankly because of this I like the man and his rhetoric and go daily to look at his blog.

Only a fool would try to fool others with such a blatantly transparent statement. I think Richard Feynman was referring to himself when he made that statement. Both our families come from a very hard school. We had to learn not to fool ourselves nor try to fool others.

How do you expect me to explain someone else's motivations. I may just as well ask you to explain why you don't you use the millions ?

Only a fool would try to fool others with such a blatantly transparent statement. I think Richard Feynman was referring to himself when he made that statement.

No, I am quite sure that is not what he meant. I've read a number of his books and I think I have a pretty good understanding of the point he was making. If you and your cousin really think you are incapable of being fooled, or fooling yourselves, then you are indeed fools. His point was that only the scientific method (controlled experiments, double-blind testing, peer review, replication of experiments, etc) can reliably separate the demonstrably false from the possibly true. And even then we're not really sure...

I can quote the references because I have already found them but why should I. If I found them what is stopping anybody else from doing the same. If I come across a statement then I don't say bullshit prove it, I find the evidence to contradict or confirm it.

I am old enough to remember when Kirlian photography was touted as a new, non-invasive diagnostic tool back in the '70s. Funny that PET, CAT, MRI and Ultrasound have all been so successful since then but you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who's heard of Kirlian photography. I have read and heard enough about it to understand what it is and some of the physics behind it. I'm not aware of any way in which it can be used to support claims of people being able to see auras. Why wouldn't you quote references? Here's your opportunity to show me where I'm wrong; make me eat my words. Or is your evidence perhaps not quite as compelling as you claim it is? Maybe you know damn well it is inconclusive or non-existent but didn't expect anyone to call you on your bullshit? You'll never get James Randi's million dollars with that attitude.

How do you expect me to explain someone else's motivations.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that Theunis is someone else. If the sock fits...

Blondin.
Apparently as far as the shoe, (Not the sock as you incorrectly say) when it comes to about lazy and reading what is not there, fits you.
So you evade the question but I will repeat it. "I may just as well ask you to explain why you don't you use the millions ?"
I am now asking so what do you say or is this your further attempted BS. It does not work on me.
How did you connect Kirlian photography with the Aura. They are two different subjects.
This is what you say about Kirlian photography "I'm not aware of any way in which it can be used to support claims of people being able to see auras."
Neither am I but read further.
Looking back at the posts.
1. Aura and the electron microscope and seeing the aura is one subject.
2. Acupuncture and Kirlian photography is one subject.
3. Bio-feedback technology and yoga "tenements" is the third subject.

Okay fooling yourself apparently refers to you if not to the author thereof.
My cousin and I live in the same city we are about 30 km from each other but by phone the distance is meaningless. We grew up together so why shouldn't many of our views be the same.

Apparently you do have some "magical" qualities for you to see across the Pacific, but your view is as Feynman says - you are fooling yourself - but look at your thumbs you will find the one is whiter and wetter than the other.

If you make an effort to approach the University in Alma-ata and give me the contents of their investigation then I will give you my references regarding their investigation and the the more difficult to trace references you seek.

**********************************
To the person who says acupuncture is nonsense:
On what do you base your statement. You gave no references either so why should I. Go ask the Chinese Embassy to give you the proofs you do not desire.
*******************
I am going to visit Tartarize. I will return in a day or two. I have some computer programs to write so if you made no effort it is of your own doing and bad luck that you remain in ignorance.

A study or two does not make a claim credible -- even if it was done at a university. People at universities can be credulous, and subject to cognitive errors and wishful thinking, as much as anyone. To accept a claim as likely or even plausible, research supporting it has to be double-blinded, placebo- controlled, rigorously cross-checked, carefully examined for methodological errors, and replicated multiple times to make sure it wasn't a fluke. And none of the claims you're making have passed that test.

Greta
Wow what knowledge and power you and your cohorts have. You merely have to say "Debunked" and all scientific facts vanish from your view.
If I had even a quarter of your knowledge and power I would rule this galaxy plus a few others.

You are worse than the worst christian extremists I have come across. You wallow in your pride and warped so called knowledge but don't enjoy it because you must continually argue about imponderables to justify your "Beliefs". You have no proof to offer yet demand proof from others. When they do offer you some pointers for self investigation your inadequacies are revealed because to be lazy and spoon fed is your ultimate goal.

You want proof that "GOD" exists so here goes - I read on the atheist forum that great fun or was it consternation was being made concerning so called given facts put forward by some atheist. One posters retort was that he can prove you wrong and that one plus two equals is not three it equals one. Relative to the subject he was quite correct 2 parts Hydrogen plus one part oxygen equals one part water. One man plus one woman makes one and nine months later makes three which reverts to one. One what - One family of course. The poster went further and gave irrefutable proof that a GOD exists and stated Water is GOD without this GOD everything and everyone on earth dies so it must be GOD the poster said. Try not drinking water for a week or so. Just when you succeed living without it you will surely die. Therefore water is GOD to all things on earth and this proves that GOD exists he said. He does have a good point doesn't he because if you are totally dependent on it it must surely be your GOD that provides for your nourishment and keeps you alive.

Atheists throw more petty tantrums and demand more things than any group I have ever met.
I am now in a quandary - Tartarize is an atheist but as a person I cannot debunk him.
So before you vanish into oblivions let me say, even if I had hope for you your supreme knowledge wins the day. Have a nice day or as the Chinese say "may you have an interesting life".
Now the ultimate -
Greta: Debunked:
Atheism: Debunked
Now that wasn't difficult to say, I must try it a few more times until I really believe such tripe.
I could as you do ignore the fact that you are still there but so what as far as I am concerned you do not exist.
Quite a nice thought from now on that is exactly what I am going to do. I am going to follow your grand example.
Goodness with whom am I communicating. Oh yes now I remember I am writing about a fictitious sub group of the human race.

Wow what knowledge and power you and your cohorts have. You merely have to say "Debunked" and all scientific facts vanish from your view.

[facepalm]

I didn't just say, "Debunked," Buster. I provided actual links to summaries of careful research showing exactly how and why these claims had been debunked. That's what it means when a word or phrase on a Website or blog is highlighted in a different color. It means there's a link to another page, and if you click on it you can go to that page.

And providing links like this, to careful research supporting your claims, is you have consistently failed to do every time anyone has asked you to.

Oh the smell in the morning of the arrogance of the ignorant... Nothing is like its... rancor...

You merely have to say "Debunked" and all scientific facts vanish from your view.

Why don't you actually learn what the scientific method is, and how it works? Then you would know why some pseudoscientific research is not valid, and you would realize these things actually are debunked, and you would get why this sentence of yours is very silly.

If I had even a quarter of your knowledge and power I would rule this galaxy plus a few others.

If you had at least some knowledge of these things, you would at least not make a fool of yourself here. That's at least one step towards ruling the galaxy.

You have no proof to offer yet demand proof from others. When they do offer you some pointers for self investigation your inadequacies are revealed because to be lazy and spoon fed is your ultimate goal.

You might want to read up on 'Burden of proof' too. We're not the ones making silly claims.

He does have a good point doesn't he because if you are totally dependent on it it must surely be your GOD that provides for your nourishment and keeps you alive.

*LOL* Okay, you must be a Poe. Seriously, I am probably just falling into a trap here, replying to an obvious Poe... But in case you're actually serious... No, he does not have a good point! If you want to prove god's existence by pointing to something that exists, and have importance, and then calling it god... I can't find the words to describe what a silly and utterly unconvincing argument that is. :-)

Atheists throw more petty tantrums and demand more things than any group I have ever met.

Uuumm... lots of pots calling the kettles black here. I seem to recall that it was your cousin (or maybe your sock) who stormed out of here because of ONE sentence calling him a snowflake after he, himself, exclaimed he was super special. He was the one throwing a tantrum and storming out only because he didn't get the respect he thought his über-specialness should receive.

Now the ultimate -
Greta: Debunked:
Atheism: Debunked
Now that wasn't difficult to say, I must try it a few more times until I really believe such tripe.

That was your ultimate? Color me unimpressed. What are you? Twelve? Tell your cousin to send an older cousin to defend him next time, you are not doing him any favors here :-) I repeat, if you would learn a bit more you would understand that some people have some substance behind what they are saying, and that just saying 'Debunked' doesn't make it so. Greta provided links where you can read up on these things and learn WHY these things are debunked. Now, you don't want to spoon feed us lazy atheists with the "facts" you have, but you... you are obviously too lazy to swallow even when we DO spoon feed you. WOW :-)

So you evade the question but I will repeat it. "I may just as well ask you to explain why you don't you use the millions ?"

Are you really that obtuse or just pretending?

Why would you think I have any access to millions of dollars? The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing offer of one million dollars US "to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions."

I have no reason to believe that I have any special powers so there's no point in me applying but you... sorry, your cousin should be able to take Mr Randi's money with one hand tied behind his back. Just click on the link above to apply.

Atheists throw more petty tantrums and demand more things than any group I have ever met.

Not taking you at your word is throwing a tantrum? Asking for citations is making demands? Come on, now... did you really expect us to just accept your claims about telepathy, auras & dragons? You've never been challenged on those claims before? I find that almost as hard to believe as the idea that you and Theunis are not the same person.

Sorry about confusing Auras, Kirlian photography and acupuncture. See, I did do some digging and found a number of flakywebsites which associated them with each other. You flakes might want to get your bullshit together. Inconsistency is a bit of a giveaway.

What about the real dragons I am talking about and not the mythical fire breathing fiction that you keep ascribing to me without any justification. Some if not most of the species look very much like the pictures of the dragons which YOU keep referring to which I know do not and never have existed.
There are quite a few different species of the dragons I have seen.
Very well they are sea dragons found off the coast of Australia. They are truly beautiful creatures.

I am reading Greta's links to sites one by one so be patient if I don't respond to them all in one go. I am not an internet "Fundi" (Expert) to me the other colours were highlights so thank you for pointing out to me they are links to other sites.

Her first reference does not meet her own requirements for scientific studies. It merely expresses opinions and conclusions drawn from the observations of a few people.

"Western Yoga" is something I have laughed at for many years. It is in fact only scratching the surface and using the most basic and first physical exercises of yoga for relaxation and one pointedness of mind. Synonyms would be concentration, meditation on one exclusive subject.
"Western Yoga" : Debunked. I whole heartedly agree.
Non western yoga is still open to discussion but does it really affect us in any way?. I no longer have the books printed in the 19th and early 20th Centuries. Yoga as described then was a total different kettle of fish.

CHAKRA - An ancient misinterpreted word, esoteric and foreign to us. Because of this Westerners became slaves to their own misconceptions.
Take a careful look at where they are situated on their charts.
What follows is what I have taken from the Holistic Healing post but slightly shortened/modified -
****************************
From head to feet.
1. Third eye - The pineal gland.
2. Throat - the thyroid gland.
3. Chest - This one is a bit trickier. It is a gland the size of a pea found in the young, which in adults dries up and appears to be no longer functional.
4. Abdomen - in females the ovaries. In men the testes.
5. Feet - Cluster of nerve cells.
**********************
Back to me:
re 5. When massaged they are overstimulated and then stop transmitting the pain in the feet. Because pain is stress inducing the cessation of pain causes relaxation. Relaxation is the key. The massage merely turns the key.
Chakras stand demystified, it is a pity the mystical misconception thereof lives on.

These glands can be influences by control of the autonomous nervous system. Using bio-feedback technology control of the autonomous nervous systems has been proven. Blood pressure, Rhythmic heart beat, generating alpha and other brain waves, confirmed by modern day technologies are medical and scientific facts. The roots and motivation for creating these technologies was inspired by the older yoga techniques. Not the mislabeled physical exercises as practiced in modern day western societies.

I have always understood this to be general knowledge but I appear to be wrong for many things are queried because of misconceptions and the milieu we find ourselves in is not always the same so our general knowledge will never be exactly the same. Damn I now sound like Theunis but as I said previously, we grew up together so it is only natural that many of our views and ways of expressing ourselves would be similar.

There is a lot of nonsense floating around regarding bio-feedback technology. The profiteers and money hungry are singing their songs of deceit to delude people. Some of their claims are totally ridiculous.

The only portion I am referring to is actual brainwave, blood pressure, heartbeat monitors similar to those, but less expensive, as used in hospitals etc.
It has nothing to do with the poo they sprout. If it was not that I am aware of these facts and having built elementary equipment from schematics for my personal use, Then I will surely agree that is it most atrocious beyond belief rubbish. Money madness. It looks like that old song "Money is the root of all evil" is correct.

Daniel Stewart said: "Oh sorry Maryann. I forgot to specify that I was using the dictionary to define the words I'm using. If you are going to use the same words but make up your own definitions then you should at least fill everyone in. Saying that all atheists are gnostic is just ignorant."

I never claimed all atheists are gnostic. They can only be gnostic if there is in fact no god. I only claimed they are pistic--believing there to be no god. For a dictionary definition that all atheists are pistic (though Greta doesn't like the dictionary)--http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

themann1086: "Maryann's requirements for "truth" and "knowledge" are so stringent that every mathematical theorem would be deemed a "belief". At that point, the term is so meaningless as to be useless."

Sometimes belief doubles as knowledge. :) Math, logic, etc., all ground rules for being...only "true" when corresponding to actual being...otherwise, merely justified. When true, the belief counts as knowledge. Sometimes we know when that is happening...sometimes we just guess. That's the best we can do, lacking omniscience. I take "stringent" as a compliment, btw. :)

It wasn't a compliment. Your argument boils down to "everything is a belief, therefore atheism is a belief, therefore atheism is just like religion, therefore agnosticism!" Hell, by that logic we shouldn't say that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames, since that's just a belief.

Not all beliefs are "just" (only) beliefs. When they are not only justified, but also true, they are also knowledge...whether or not those beliefs are considered "religious" or "scientific" or whatever else category.

What is the matter the one moment you are lucid and the next you are not. Where have you dug up your last post to me? Or is it that there are two or more people using your name and thereby giving me totally conflicting modes of communication ?
If you come back and say there is only you, how can I believe you, You don't believe me.
I referred to profiteers and racketeers deluding people with bio-feedback systems. And concerning them said that the old song seems to be correct.

I told you about sea dragons and where they can be found and said they are truly beautiful creatures. I forgot to mention that they are tiny.

Without proof you say I am two people. Is this your normal mode of argument, making statements without proof.

Me psychic! Where did you dig this up?

I confirmed that "Western Yoga" is nonsense.

I demystified the Chakras.

Is it that you do not like it when I agree with you, because you then have no reason to fight with me.
I have been writing a computer program and before I switched of decided to see what is going on here. In my part of the world it is now 3 AM. So goodbye for now and have a nice day.

Ignorance only means that at a given moment in time you don't yet have some knowledge that others do. Yet the one using the word ignorant is also as ignorant about other things.
Can you build a Faraday cage?
Can you built a brainwave monitor
Can you tell me how old I am. When you look at me you can make a guess but you are still ignorant of my actual age.
Can you do surgical operations?
Can you hypnotize someone.
Can you pilot an aircraft?
Can you repair the engine of my automobile.
Can you install a lighting system.
Do you know the requirements to become a para-medic.
Can you tell me what a "dragon" looks like without first asking me what your concept of a dragon is. If one does not the ignorance of the questioner and not the questioned is at stake.. What relevance does such a question have to Botany or Marine biology or is the questioner again generalizing and referring to his concept of a non-existent fire belching monster.
So if you ask me if Dragons exist then you must first qualify your statement with your own concept so that I may adequately reply to you. I know of at least two "dragons" at this stage.
1. A snapdragon (Botany)
2. A sea dragon (Marine biology). They are beautiful and look just like the drawings and paintings we see of the non-existent fire belching dragons.

If I say bank, what do you see. You may could see a financial company or if you were a fisherman the bank of the river where you love to sit and fish. Because you did not see the second concept straight away the bank of the river did not exist for you at that given space of time. Your "ignorance" of the other's thoughts were therefore showing but it was not ignorance as such it was not knowing what the other person meant and jumping to conclusions based sometimes on misguided thoughts of superiority.

I am well versed in the scientific method. Have you ever used it? During my studies I had to.
Even with double blind studies the bias of the person or team undertaking the study and those who judge the study cannot be eliminated. But does that qualify me to say that because of small discrepancies the total investigation is nonsense. That is being biased and egotistical to the extreme. Why have a pass mark of 80% and you are not awarded your degree. Well your professor said nothing less than 100% is acceptable. Poor professor he only knows his own field and not much else. There are too many so called specialists and ignorance becomes a greater burden for us all because of this.
So maybe you now understand a bit more about ignorance and will use another better word or qualify what you mean when you use the label ignorant.
You will only get yes to a few of these question when you ask it to a group of people.
Ignorant is such a wide concept but it does not make anyone stupid and only points to lack of specific knowledge at a given time.
In life you will always find someone who knows something you don't, must one thus conclude you are an ignoramous because you don't know what others do but notwithstanding you may have a much greater general knowledge than most.
I have already been taught that on the internet it is not highlights they refer to links. I was ignorant of that but now I am no longer because some one ignorant of other things has taught me.
The joke about water - can you live without it ? So why wouldn't people of ancient revered it as a GOD because it is a fact that without it nothing on this earth could live. So many concepts were born. To them that is proof beyond any doubt.

Aren't things that cannot be perceived with our normal five senses being "proven" all the time. How do we know it is not a lot of nonsense scientists are saying because they have to use things beyond our normal senses to prove something. How do we know that that which is seen on their screens or cathode ray tubes are not their own interpretation and the computer program was written to justify their views. They use amplifiers to increase the signal, but how much of the signal is not random noise or reception of radio waves generated by other stars or galaxies. Have you ever heard how the old manual farm line telephone systems "sing" because the length of the wires they become tuned antenna/aerials picking up radio/magnetic waves.

Dogs hear frequencies higher than we can, does this not mean that we have limited perceptions of sound. We can feel frequencies below 12 Hz as vibrations but cannot hear them.
Can we see the air ? Can we see X-rays or Gamma rays or the magnetic field of the earth with our normal five senses?
Does this not point to other limitations that we are subject to.

On one atheism forum I read the brag that "Atheism is the fastest growing religion". Is this then expressing a belief or is he now saying that Atheism is a religion, This statement says automatically that they have their own beliefs and faiths. Tut Tut bad choice of words by him would be your response or again you could say the darn fool he is making atheists look like idiots. Both statements are correct, there are no two ways about it. However Scientology also claim they are the fastest growing religion. In both cases neither gave actual figures from ten years ago till now. So are atheist and every one else not prone to having false "beliefs". Better to say "atheists are also just normal people and they are also prone to making false conclusions."
Take the fact that my immediate family grew by 33%. The total body count for the original family was two. Add one child and no one can argue that it is not an increase of 33.333 %. A nonsensical use of statistics but being used every day to prove nothing except to attempt to delude people.

Oh apparently I, from your and Blondin's unqualified wild statements, have a dual personality. Again my previous ignorance but without assistance from you or any one else I have figured out what you mean by "Sock" in internet terms. (Previously my only concept for sock(s) was that you wear them on your feet).
The only thing that was proven by Psychometric tests was that I am an abnormal. I fall within that 2.5 percent of people known as nerds and that I am not a Brady Murphy.
As Theunis would say "Peace be with you"

I mentioned invisible dragons and Greta mentioned flying, fire-breathing dragons. In both cases it should be fairly obvious that these dragon references were being given as examples of things which sane people generally accept as non-existent.

You keep going on about snapdragons and sea dragons as if the fact that there are plants/creatures named for a mythical beast they somewhat resemble has any bearing on the existence of their namesake. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Komodo dragons.

If I say bank, what do you see. You may could see a financial company or if you were a fisherman the bank of the river where you love to sit and fish. Because you did not see the second concept straight away the bank of the river did not exist for you at that given space of time. Your "ignorance" of the other's thoughts were therefore showing but it was not ignorance as such it was not knowing what the other person meant and jumping to conclusions based sometimes on misguided thoughts of superiority.

When it is clear from context which bank (or dragon) is being discussed how does it advance the discussion to play little word games with unrelated ideas? Do you just like throwing in oblique references so you can say, "Aha! That's not the dragon I was talking about so I was right and you were wrong"? You and your cousin both seem to have a preoccupation with being "special". Far from making unqualified wild statements I think we have simply voiced justified observations about a possible case of sock-puppetry.

None of which has any bearing on the discussion about atheism being a religion. I really can't think of anything new to add on that subject. Atheism is an opinion or attitude that is arrived at for various reasons by different people. There is no central canon or dogma. It simply tends to be a conclusion arrived at by people who think in terms of evidence and degrees of certainty. That is not to say there are no dogmatic atheists who claim to know things they can't possibly know. I've never met one of those but I'm sure they're out there.

I still think there are two of you using one name. But never mind this is one of your interesting conversations.
I think it is the other way round regarding the sea dragon, some look exactly (not similar )to those paintings which was probably an ancient SYMBOLS painted by Chinese and Japanese of something known which had some meaning to them. Some twit decided to paint about 500-1000 times the actual size and not knowing where the symbol came from decided there used to be dragons. As far as symbols are concerned the so called swastika is a symbol that is thousands of years old. It actually means "Eternal peace and prosperity". What does it now mean after the Nazi's got hold of it. A now horrible symbol devoid of it's original meaning. Yet another symbol of which the original meaning no longer exists.
The Komodo Dragon is not nearly a dragon it is of the lizard family if a remember correctly, but that is one I forgot about so thanks for reminding me. To date I still wonder why they named it so because there is absolutely no resemblance to the paintings.
We both are in accord with the Dragon stories so we may as well drop this as a conversation piece.
Thanks for telling me that Atheists are like any other humans fallible and have differing ideas of what an atheist is. Actually I already knew that and have no preconceived ideas on the matter.
Live and learn is my motto.

Is that Fattis and Monis Pasta you are referring to? They make a great variety or is it some private local joke or insult you guys have ? No worries it only means something if the other person knows what you mean so in this case I feel you are not communicating. Even if you were to explain how you use it and it is an insult so what. If it is an insult and it made you feel good, Enjoy.
I had a typing error it is should have read "Bridy Murphy"

I'm too busy with that darn computer program but I did pop in to say hello.

No offense, but have you been in a coma or living in a cave for some years? I'm not trying to belittle but I just find it interesting that you are a computer/internet user who seems to be just learning about web tropes like links, sock-puppets and the FSM.

I have only recently got Internet for my daughters sake who is doing her masters and she needs it for her studies.

My computer programs are in QuickBasic (QB4.5) which is now a legacy item. But I think I have now had enough and if there was another forum were we could chat on I'd rather chat with you.
Okay I make piddly statements but I don't mean ill with them.
I could have been my daughters grandfather, which gives you an idea of my age. A so what you may as well know, in September I turned 74. The only illness I have had over the past 50 years is flu. (She is a terrible thing she takes anybody to bed)
I must forever learn it is the monkey on my back which just pushes me on and on to acquire more and more general knowledge. Sheez I have been at it since the age of 5, that right five. web tropes, sock-puppets, FSM is meaningless to me until someone tells me what they mean then It is some added knowledge.

I really don't take offense and about almost anything can be said to me, because I feel that people if frustrated must blow of steam.
I try not to behave obnoxious but I am virtually a babe in the woods and things we say jokingly in my home language, Afrikaans, in South Africa, I have found are regarded as insults elsewhere.
That is why I said if it makes you feel good kick me.
I normally deserve one or two kicks.
You say you are an atheist, I say so what you are still a man. I have been called many things in my life Atheist was one of them, It was like water off a ducks back. It just never touched me so in that regard I differ from most people and have even been regarded as abnormal.

After the psychometric tests it took me two years to change my normal mode of communication but I have never had 100% success to make myself understood at all times. I am not whining I am just me explaining that I hunt knowledge and don't know how to stop.

Not all beliefs are "just" (only) beliefs. When they are not only justified, but also true, they are also knowledge...whether or not those beliefs are considered "religious" or "scientific" or whatever else category.

But since we can never be 100% sure whether our conclusions are true, then by your definitions, we can never tell whether our conclusions are "knowledge" or simply "justified beliefs." (With the exception of a handful of mathematical and logical propositions, along the lines of "If A and B are true, then C is also true.")

And once again, we're back to the central problem. Which is this: Let's say we accept your definition of "belief" -- namely, any conclusion we can't be absolutely, 100% positive about. And let's say that we therefore agree that, according to this definition, atheism and religion are both "beliefs."

So what? Would this say anything substantial about either atheism and religion? According to this definition, "The earth is round" and "Leprechauns hide pots of gold at the ends of rainbows" are both beliefs. "Lightning is an atmospheric discharge of electricity" and "Lightning comes from Thor's hammer" are both beliefs. Totally regardless of whether that's a useful definition of the word "belief"... does it say anything at all about whether atheism and theism are comparable world views, or are similarly likely to be true?

And if not... then why do you care about this point? Is there any reason to insist on it, other than to (a) create a false impression of equivalency between atheism and theism, and (b) distract from the substantive questions of whether there is even one scrap of solid evidence supporting the god hypothesis... or whether there is any god hypothesis that's even coherent and worth subjecting to questions of evidence?

It is supposed to be ADSL running at 384 KB. Tests indicate that because of line attenuation it is closer to 262 Kb but when downloading anything The fastest I get is 39 Kb, which is slower than a normal dial up system of 56Kb.

Although I am 74 in years I am a young man caught up in an old body. The yoga I use (not the Western and self styled Guru, sorry to say, crap) since the age of 24 has been the reason that I am the exception in our family who still has the same blood pressure as when I was fit and 20 Years old. Those who passed away or are still living all take medication for high blood pressure, I can drop my heartbeat, but prefer never to take it below 55 beats per minute.
And have many times dropped my blood pressure to 112/64.
I can give pointers without any mumbo jumbo.
I practice self-hypnosis and auto-suggestion every night before I fall or as I fall asleep and have hypnotized others with very good results.
I am sorry we better fight about, or discuss something, this is Greta's Blog and we should not chat on it.

I must agree with Greta. As far as the God of the Jews is concerned, he never existed and never will, This is the omnipotent, all knowing, most compassionate and at the same time the most horrible GOD, if you were to believe the stories of the mass murders ascribed to him, which history has proven to be natural disasters and in the case of the 50,000 or more Assyrians which the "angel of death" killed in one night, was an outbreak of the plague and it did not occur overnight.
I had a Christian upbringing but nowhere does the old testament give proof of such a GOD. In the Sanskrit there are references to people with technological power far beyond what we have now and if we put aside some esoteric nonsense in the old testament then they confirm certain things and even point to the time of the great ones, Not GOD. The reference here is "the sons of GOD, clearly indicating flesh and blood sons, took the earth women and they had children, and that was in the time of the Great Ones".
Of course the latest translations now say the heavenly beings, just to justify their thoughts, but they still made babies with our women so they were still human no matter what you call them.

Most Atheists deny this merely because it is in the Bible and Many Christians because they choose to not see what is before their very eyes. Those Christians who see it become anathema and end up excommunicated. (Not that I ever was)

The Jews were always downtrodden so a psychological crutch had to be invented for them to believe in something better than themselves. It worked but later became twisted into fanatic beliefs and the Jews started believing they were the chosen.
In the New testament there is a very short piece about I found you lying in the gutter (my word meaning beaten and regarded as worthless) cleaned you up and taught you to be more human, but then they became arrogant and thought yourself better than others.

Voltaire said "Even if there is no God it would be necessary to invent one". He gave both Christians and Atheist some big blasts.
The two beings that I have the most pity and compassion for is God and The Devil. They get blamed for everything because of our non-acceptance and denial of our responsibilities.

All we have left is our beliefs and faith that there is more to life. This cannot be taken away from anyone no matter how we argue.
Is Atheism a "belief" No it is a way of life. The same applies to Christians.

If I have to stand by an atheist as I am now doing, and fight because of nonsense I will do so, and the same goes for Christians. Why was it said I am now leaving earth but I am taking Joshua, with me ? Sounds very much like a space ship. Go find the visions of Isaiah which for the first time appeared AD. not BC as one would have expected.
There Isaiah was taken to another world and after a short visit he was informed that they must return. He wanted to know why so soon and was informed that many years have passed since he left earth, but he need not worry when they return he will still be the same age. Einstein's theory of relativity. Nonsense relativity was published almost two thousand years before he was born. This also points to a journey by space ship. God was demystified ages ago but we still stick to our beliefs and cherish them.
Except for the "Visions of Isaiah", all that I have said appears in the old and new testaments.
UFO fanatics don't get excited in America there was definitely a "UFO" cover up, attention was diverted to UFO's, to cover up the American experiments on their own people. Grey ones. Crickey doesn't anyone recall where they originated. In a science fiction movie in about 1935 titled the War of the Worlds. So a couple of gas or virus masks would to a drugged person appear to look like the old Greys from that movie.
I don't profess to know more than either parties, but somewhere along the line I discovered I was not born with blinkers which means I can look to both sides and forward.

My English dictionary gives a conflicting definition so I looked at the same word in my home language for the translation and it is more correct than the English dictionary. The translation says:-

Belief : Hold true.

It doesn't say it IS true it says you think it is true.

So what is the argument. Belief cannot be made a fact nor is it knowledge. No matter how one tries it cannot be interpreted as anything else.
I can think it is true and so can you. But that does not mean it is true for you only think so and it could be false.
My knowledge of links was lacking, A fact. If you say it is my belief (or I believe) that your knowledge of links is lacking it only opens a subject for discussion. You are expressing an opinion which could be true or false.

So once again Greta Kudos to you.

A way of life cannot be made a belief of life. It remains a way of life.

My English dictionary gives a conflicting definition so I looked at the same word in my home language for the translation and it is more correct than the English dictionary. The translation says:-

Belief : Hold true.

There's a solution - just find a dictionary that gives the definition you like!

Seriously, I'm being flippant but I think this illustrates that words mean what we want them to mean when we say them. Context is important. It is presumptuous, disingenuous and rude to insist that people intend something they clearly don't because of dictionary definitions of words.

Blondin
I agree with you.
I dug out my yellow paged Noah Webster Dictionary first published 1847 with additions etc to 1900.
If I look at this Dictionary. It is an A4 size book and almost a a third of the page in very fine print, is used to describe the various uses of this word. If we talk worldwide on the Web then whose dictionary must we use? This immediately limits you.

How about "Sodomy" An older Collins dictionary says "unnatural copulation with animals".
Another dictionary says. "abnormal sex, usually anal"
So why did the meaning of the word change?

Reading through previous replies I can see why she drew Theunis's statement into the conversation. He used it loosely and probably did it so to show that it can be used in different ways. She was correct to use what he said the way she did.

I am not arguing with Greta, I support her , for want of a betters word, "views" and arguments in this regard.